On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 10:26:37AM -0800, Mark Vojkovich wrote: >On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, David Dawes wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 05:06:28PM -0800, Mark Vojkovich wrote: >> > This sounds like it will completely break binary compatibility. >> >> It looks like it does change the size of some data structures and >> the data types of some fields. Whether these changes affect the >> module interfaces is something that needs to be checked in each >> case. >> >> I wonder, though, if we'd be better off going all the way and making >> the number of screens dynamic. >> >> David > > ALOT of modules (drivers and extensions) do stuff like: > >static int shmPixFormat[MAXSCREENS]; >static ShmFuncsPtr shmFuncs[MAXSCREENS]; >static DestroyPixmapProcPtr destroyPixmap[MAXSCREENS];
That would only be a problem if such modules were actually used when the number of screens is greater than MAXSCREENS. It's no different than if someone were to use modules built with one value of MAXSCREENS with an XFree86 server built with a larger value. It isn't really an interface compatibility problem, or a good reason to not solve the static MAXSCREENS problem. The affect on data structures that may be part of the module interfaces is potentially more serious. It might also be a non-issue if none of the affected data structures are part of module interfaces. David _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
